It seems natural to assume that relentless pressure will force authoritarian leaders to yield, yet the opposite is often true. When survival is at stake, backing down can be more dangerous than standing firm. This counterintuitive logic has played out repeatedly in the Persian Gulf. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein refused to leave Kuwait in 1991 to avoid humiliation, defections and the threat of a coup. Today, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei faces a similar trap, as giving in to U.S. pressure could weaken his hold at home. History shows that extreme pressure can embolden defiance and absorbing blows can be politically safer than capitulation.
During his State of the Union Speech on Feb. 24, U.S. President Donald Trump boasted that the June 2025 Operation Midnight Hammer had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. Yet, just the weekend before, Steve Witkoff — his special envoy to the Middle East — inadvertently revealed on Fox News that the program had not been entirely destroyed, and asked in frustration why Iran’s leaders “haven’t capitulated … with the amount of naval power over there” and why they haven’t simply declared they do not seek a nuclear weapon. Trump’s Republican predecessors, Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush, asked the same question. Saddam might have the answer.
In 1991 and 2003, massive American military forces were arrayed in the Persian Gulf to compel Saddam to abandon his alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and, in the earlier case, withdraw from Kuwait. Yet, Saddam stayed in Kuwait after the U.N. deadline passed on Jan. 15, 1991, despite facing a U.S.-led coalition of more than 40 nations far superior to his forces. Withdrawing under an ultimatum would have signaled weakness at home and risked a coup from his inner circle.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member